Thread: Little People-Big World

So, my wife was watching this reality show, "Little people-Big World". It's about the man and wife who are midgets and have one son is a midget, but they have two other children who are normal size.
Now, the father built guard rails on his deck that came up to his waist (about 20"), so that he could see his backyard like normal people get to do. Building Inspector shows up and says no way.
The midget pitches a fit about how the code is unfair to his condition.
What!
He has 2 other children in the house that are normal size. That is what the code is for. He will have other people who will visit that are normal size. That is what the code is for.
Curious to hear from others on this matter.

Similar Threads:

• LETTER: Home buying: When bad things happen to good people - Hutchinson Leader
• What in the world...
• Shower for Little People
• SWITCH FROM HIGH HOME ENERGY BILLS TO PERMANENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY - World-Wire (press

Originally Posted by Richard M. Pinkerton

He has 2 other children in the house that are normal size. That is what the code is for. He will have other people who will visit that are normal size. That is what the code is for.
Curious to hear from others on this matter.

.

"He will have other people who will visit that are normal size. That is what the code is for."

Correct.

That is what the code is based on when height requirements are stated - "average sized adults".

Take that same "code compliant guard" and have a *tall* person stand next to it ... that guard is not going to do much good, is it?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

.

"He will have other people who will visit that are normal size. That is what the code is for."

Correct.

That is what the code is based on when height requirements are stated - "average sized adults".

Take that same "code compliant guard" and have a *tall* person stand next to it ... that guard is not going to do much good, is it?

Average size adults would be between the average size of a man and average size of a woman. So basically the code is based on protecting the average size person only and not the tall people. When this little person wants to make a rail that is suitable for him, he cannot because it does not provide adequate protection to the average adult. Interesting.

Originally Posted by Kevin Luce

When this little person wants to make a rail that is suitable for him, he cannot because it does not provide adequate protection to the average adult.

.

Kevin,

You apparently missed part of the original post.

He has 2 other children in the house that are normal size. That is what the code is for.

Are you saying he should be allowed to protect himself and not his children?

And, are you saying he should be allowed to protect himself and not his friends?

Double shame on you.

Originally Posted by Richard M. Pinkerton

Now, the father built guard rails on his deck that came up to his waist (about 20"), so that

he could see his backyard like normal people get to do.

The midget pitches a fit about how the code is unfair to his condition.
.

.
The purpose of the short ( no pun intended ) guard rails was so the Vertically Challenged Individual may have a better View.
.

They could fix the little guy with a rack...

Best

Ron

Just a hint, the term midget can be offensive to "little people".

rick

Ever see a midget ha sorry little guy Home Inspector?

Do we have any Little people on this board?

Don't want no fat people around me!

Don't want no tall people around me!

Don't want no old people around me!



Best

Ron

Does anyone else here find the mom on that show hot?? And I am 6'6" Hmmmm.

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

Just a hint, the term midget can be offensive to "little people".

rick

I think this whole thread could be offensive....

Now you can't offend everybody can you?

People make fun of me every place I go I don't get offended.

Now if you want to see something funny just picture me at 280LBS Trying to get my fat *&%$# into a small sub-accessssss opening. Now Thats funny...

Best

Ron

Originally Posted by Ron Bibler

Now if you want to see something funny just picture me at 280LBS... Now Thats funny...

Maybe the old "What Do You Look Like?" thread should be resurrected.

Originally Posted by Matt Fellman

I think this whole thread could be offensive....

The father on that show opened his life up to observation, his choice.
He also chose to challenge the BCD, again his choice. He always says how he wants no preferential treatment, yet he wants the Code to bend to his "level"-pardon the pun.
Not offensive at all, merely shop talk.

He will get done with whatever project that show was about then put the little guy rail in.

Best

Ron

The deck guardrail code is the minimum standard, as are all codes. There is nothing that says he could not have exceeded it.

I have seen decks, and balconies, with thick, plexi-glass guardrails, specifically so people could see out at whatever the vista. If that shows' star wanted to be able to look out, nothing stopped him from creating a code-compliant guardrail, with higher, plexi-glass sections which, for him, would have been like picture windows.

Maybe the producers of the show thought they were showing how every "code" does not take into account every person's true needs and thus diminish enjoyment, in the name of safety. It would have been a far cooler show for the dad to show how creative he could be, yet meet the "big world' standards.

Well, the guy adding soil to the minimum drop, to close the length between top of guard rail and grade, to within 30", should not have been allowed, the soil is not indigenous of that location, therefore being classified as a removable material...right?

Originally Posted by Richard M. Pinkerton

Well, the guy adding soil to the minimum drop, to close the length between top of guard rail and grade, to within 30", should not have been allowed, the soil is not indigenous of that location, therefore being classified as a removable material...right?

Richard,

No, almost every construction site while have excavation and fill activities. That was just a fill activity.

The requirement, and intent, is simply to 'reduce the injury' (not reduce the risk of injury, just reduce the injury) by fallen a shorter distance, that 30" elevation difference has been with us for a very long time.

From the 2006 IRC. (underlining is mine)

- R312.1 Guards.

Porches, balconies, ramps or raised floor surfaces located more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below shall have guards not less than 36 inches (914 mm) in height. Open sides of stairs with a total rise of more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below shall have guards not less than 34 inches (864 mm) in height measured vertically from the nosing of the treads.
- - Porches and decks which are enclosed with insect screening shall be equipped with guards where the walking surface is located more than 30 inches (762 mm) above the floor or grade below.

GRADE.

The finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls.

If the guy wants to keep everything in "perspective" to his and *most* (but not all) of his families height stature, then that distance should be reduced to 15". Changes and accommodations would be, after all, a two way street - if something is allowed to be lower (the railing), then the other thing needs to match (the height above grade). If he is 3 feet tall, then he is 1/2 as tall as 'normal', so his "smaller" body would have more time to tumble and somersault before hitting the ground.

What if things were built for the average size height challenged person?
If that was all he / they ever had visiting, would it really be wrong?

Maybe they are average size........the rest of us are excessivly tall.

Originally Posted by Jim Zborowski

What if things were built for the average size height challenged person?
If that was all he / they ever had visiting, would it really be wrong?

Yes.

However, there may be some way to accommodate that, such as restrictions that persons a taller stature are not allowed into the building, that the building can never be sold to anyone of taller stature, that the door height be dropped to restrict the entry of taller persons, that the ceiling were lower to a relative height, that ...

There are many things which one could do which would 'ensure' that taller (average height upon which the code is based persons) would not be using the house - which would be the only logical way to allow those exceptions.

Maybe they are average size........the rest of us are excessivly tall.

Maybe, but then you would need to redefine the word "average".

Have you ever been in a little persons home?

If code was so concerned about the safety of "average sized people" they would stipulate that the counter top cook top to be high enough so I don't burn my banana hammock every time I test one. And when I'm standing at the bathroom sink all I can see is my gut...who the hell wants to see that!

Originally Posted by Richard Thacker

when I'm standing at the bathroom sink all I can see is my gut...who the hell wants to see that!

.
Not Me.
.

Originally Posted by Richard Thacker

Have you ever been in a little persons home?

If code was so concerned about the safety of "average sized people" they would stipulate that the counter top cook top to be high enough so I don't burn my banana hammock every time I test one. And when I'm standing at the bathroom sink all I can see is my gut...who the hell wants to see that!

Richard,

To answer your question, yes.

I've also been in tall people homes where everything was higher.

Code addresses minimum life safety issues, it does not address common sense, such as being able to keep your banana hammock when you test one.

By the way, how do you test a banana hammock where it can get burned? Our is on the counter, where do you put yours and why do you carry one with you?